MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1179139140 · doi:10.1017/ccol521633230.018

How Frisch Saw in the 1960s the Contribution of Economists to Development Planning

2012· book-chapter· en· W1179139140 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Personality psychologyWork (physics)Atmosphere (unit)Economic historyHistoryPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomySociologyEconomicsGeographyEngineeringPsychologySocial psychologyArchaeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two considerations motivate this essay: First, the author may have testimony to give about Ragnar Frisch. Second, the history of economic ideas should analyze those views about planning that were influential during the third quarter of this century, particularly in Western Europe. During the 1950s and early 1960s, European economists involved in setting up national accounts and macroeconomic programming often met for a week or so, in conditions very different from those prevailing in the large, short gatherings now common for international scientific interchange. A group of some 30 participants would discuss at length issues raised by their work. The younger ones would receive advice from a few dominant personalities, who would also at times embark on lengthy debates with each other. The atmosphere was friendly and open.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it